The Warrior

[basics]

When I was growing up in a Southside road in Glasgow there was hardly a close, that's the entry to tenaments, in our road that did not house men having returned from the war who did not carry horrific injuries. Most of them had been in the Burma campaign, some having been prisoners of war in Japanese camps and so to me these guys were warriors, why? Because they were still fighting to make the best of a bad situation that they were in. Wheelchairs and crutches were as common as mud not to mention the unseen injuries to the mind that then we never gave much thought to. They never had the glamour of soundtracks as films portray, rather the sound of shot and shell perhaps still latent in the mind being expressed with the backfiring of a car where some were seen to duck just by instinct. That was my world back then.

[AqD]

your idea of warrior is quite romantic

Let's go back to the origin of empires - Achaemenid, Assyria, Parthia, Vedic India etc. All those started with foreign warriors who beat native people and proclaim themselves kings; no religion, no brainwashing or lies. The foundation of empires is violence, kept by a warrior class who are essentially self serving.

It later evolved into something different, that is, more psychological and social bs. But the fact remains that they all came from self-serving warriors beating others into submission (ask yourself: where did British royalty come from?). And the same kind of warriors reappeared again whenever civil governments collapse - in later period of Abbasid, or every dynasties in China, or modern Afghanistan.

That was the world.

Those guys in the illusion of yours are not warriors, but pawns, brainwashed by nationalism to kill people living on the other side of earth they never meet, for the benefits of others or made up reasons which they don't even care. They're in fact quite similar to Easterlings in LOTR or Crusaders in some way - while I'm pretty sure they have better stories to tell themselves and their children, I don't think it's good for them at all.

[Cyclops]

your idea of warrior is quite romantic

Let's go back to the origin of empires - Achaemenid, Assyria, Parthia, Vedic India etc. All those started with foreign warriors who beat native people and proclaim themselves kings; no religion, no brainwashing or lies. The foundation of empires is violence, kept by a warrior class who are essentially self serving.

It later evolved into something different, that is, more psychological and social bs. But the fact remains that they all came from self-serving warriors beating others into submission (ask yourself: where did British royalty come from?). And the same kind of warriors reappeared again whenever civil governments collapse - in later period of Abbasid, or every dynasties in China, or modern Afghanistan.

That was the world.

Those guys in the illusion of yours are not warriors, but pawns, brainwashed by nationalism to kill people living on the other side of earth they never meet, for the benefits of others or made up reasons which they don't even care. They're in fact quite similar to Easterlings in LOTR or Crusaders in some way - while I'm pretty sure they have better stories to tell themselves and their children, I don't think it's good for them at all.

I think warfare has a strong "performative" element. I agree war is hell but people dress it up to motivate the war makers to make war, to defend their property (private and public) and so on. Even then people saw through the lies.

Aeschylus "Persian Women" and Homer both display a clear understanding of the negative impact of war on the victims, and on the victors. Achilles is a very messed up guy and in the Odyssey his shade in Hades is extremely unhappy with the "short but glorious" life he chose.

Both authors display some sensitivity to "the enemy" as well as "our side". Both also glory in the warrior as hero. Herodotus, that honest relayer of past opinions, tells us of the harshness (and almost boorish simplicity) of the Spartans but at the same time revels in the the description he puts into Demaratus' mouth of their awesome lethality.

As for British royalty, they are rent-a-monarchs for the City Livery Companies and Freemasons who run the UK. They generally select B tier Germans and Danes broken to parliamentary obedience. They accepted a Dutchman once he successfully invaded, but quickly changed dynasties because he was tool pushy.

[basics]

AqD,

Go back before then and see how tribes fought each other for dominance of space, food and existence itself and there you begin to build a picture of how it all started. As populations increased so did the pressure for expansion and to my mind that's how your empires began.

The guys I talked of were no different from the men and women of these days with the exception of the timing their training began for the work of killing. I've now lived to see WW2, Korea, Ireland, Suez, Cyprus, Kenya, Afghanistan, Falklands and not forgetting the Holy Land. There was nothing romantic about any of these as the wives and mothers of the dead or wounded would attest to. It may be strange but of all the men that I've known who have served in any of these campaigns, not one would talk about them unless pressed.

[swabian]

Let the guy speak, please. I disagree with attacking basics simply because he's a Christian. The problem is that we cannot know if his claims and stories are true. However, it feels awful to mob up at someone who has something interesting to say, if only temporarily. I think it should be given some time and attention.

@basics

The guys I talked of were no different from the men and women of these days with the exception of the timing their training began for the work of killing.

So, you claim to be a veteran of many wars who chose to seek the attention of users here, because...

But my actual question is this: Did anyone of your comrades display the very common experience of euphoria during the heat of battle? Because many soldiers actually confirm, that combat experience is a huge rush and a fun adventure, if you're on the winning side. US snipers for example are really keen on getting as many kills as possible, without feeling any emotional distress about the lives they take. And no, they're not (significantly) psychopathic or otherwise disturbed. It's a competition among them for badges and high scores, like it was a computer game.

Edit:

@sceptics of the ruthless brutality of the ancient world: How do you think the Roman legions made it from battle to battle with almost constantly high morale? Do you think they carried themselves from depression to depression, because they killed enemies and crucified innocents? I know rape and other undisciplined escapades were harshly punished, but aside from that: Do you really believe they did see their life as anything else as a professional life in the service of the Empire?

[conon394]

Because many soldiers actually confirm, that combat experience is a huge rush and a fun adventure, if you're on the winning side. US snipers for example are really keen on getting as many kills as possible, without feeling any emotional distress about the lives they take

When in the moment but compare...

https://people.com/celebrity/america...ragic-suicide/

https://www.postandcourier.com/our-g...2e618e01c.html

... or later. See also more generally

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...eteran_suicide

@sceptics of the ruthless brutality of the ancient world: How do you think the Roman legions made it from battle to battle with almost constantly high morale? Do you think they carried themselves from depression to depression, because they killed enemies and crucified innocents? I know rape and other undisciplined escapades were harshly punished, but aside from that: Do you really believe they did see their life as anything else as a professional life in the service of the Empire?

Can you rephrase this I not sure who are addressing.

There is a I think often a difficult and fine line when making comparisons to ancient evidence I think have a response but I would a little more clarity. But at least don't forget Roman as trained long service professionals only describes some Legions some of the time not all (and truly in times when they such nominally)

[basics]

The stories I tell of were completely true and there are many more but the point I am making is that every man or woman pressed into service for their tribe or nation deserves to be called a warrior. The greatest of these are all the men and women who carry injuries when hostilities are well over and there are many of these. Their fight carries on in mind and body.

[conon394]

The stories I tell of were completely true and there are many more but the point I am making is that every man or woman pressed into service for their tribe or nation deserves to be called a warrior. The greatest of these are all the men and women who carry injuries when hostilities are well over and there are many of these. Their fight carries on in mind and body.

As I said above I believe that is wrong. A soldier is not in my mind the same as a warrior.

[chriscase]

Doesn't the term warrior imply some sort of nobility?

[conon394]

As I see yes a warrior is somebody for whom war is basically what do from birth, what you do first and foremost, what wins your status and wealth in your society. A for example Knight is a warrior. Trained from childhood, buried in tales, songs and epics telling you this is what you do. Sure you are nominally ruler some piece of land but lets be honest your seneschal/steward and clergy really do the administration of your land. Your job is take more or make sure nobody takes what you have. Answer the call of whatever your superior lord is without question to do the same and win glory but not to reason why.

[basics]

conon394,

The dictionary meaning must then be wrong for it says, quote, " a brave or experienced soldier or fighter." When I was in the Cameronian cadets we mixed with many serving soldiers and one in particular I can never forget was the guy whose nose had been blown away by an explosion. Where his nose had been was just a big hole in his face so to my mind that guy was a warrior. The man who gave my wife away at our wedding during the war his plane was shot down and he spent five days adrift in the Mediterranian. It wasn't until after he died that his family discovered his decorations during his service. My wife's father actually captured two Germans and long after when he went into his local in Cullen these two Germans recognised him as their captor. Like many prisoners of war they were put to work on our farms and here they were working in his home village allowed out for a drink in his local. All these guys were warriors.

[conon394]

I find that a poor definition and one that is lazy and lacks historical context.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Warrior is a term, that is usually used to describe a warrior class/caste in a tribal / feudal society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_caste

They are mainly motivated by honor/fame/plundering.

Soldiers on the other side are "motivated" to fight by drill and discipline.

[basics]

Morticia lunia Bruti,

So the dictionary is wrong?

[conon394]

Morticia lunia Bruti,

So the dictionary is wrong?

I would yes. Again its a lazy equivalency. A soldier is not a warrior nor a warrior a soldier.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

There are more simple lexika and more academical ones:

a soldier, usually one who has both experience and skill in fighting, especially in the past:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/...glisch/warrior

A soldier on the other side:

a person who is in an army and wears its uniform, especially someone who fights when there is a war:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/...glisch/soldier

[basics]

Morticia lunia Bruti,

So in both cases a soldier! Someone who has been trained to fight in a war or struggle. By that I mean the Cyprus or the Kenyan events in British history where British soldiers, mostly call ups, fought Eoka and the Mau Mau.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

"Soldier" and "warrior" are casually interchangeable, and the difference comes in vague implications from context (particularly when and how you want to imply them) and whatever else people want to latch on as semantics to divide them.

In either case it's really not too complicated, but boiling it down to a specific thing and that has universal agreement/recognition, well, that's worth another three pages here.

[basics]

The thing is that few men who have ever tasted war would talk about it never mind class themselves as warriors once their service was over. Of course in service the main object of training is to get them to believe that they are capable of winning whatever task they were asked to do. So, one could put it that a warrior camaraderie was built into their training and behaviour, the old drill sergeant being conspicuously busy in that department.

[conon394]

That is in a nutshell the difference you are side stepping and the casual equivalence you are making.

A good long read by a good Historian is Here:

https://acoup.blog/2020/04/16/collec...itan-nobility/

The point here is that Bertran de Born was a warrior it what he did more or less his whole life (again other non warriors administered his holding almost certainly) . It was the reason for his status. He did not return from it. He gloried in and he was damn well going to tell you about all the time it what he was. He was not a soldier nor a Greek hoplite (excluding Spartan equals) nor even a an imperial roman legionary nor a man who took the shillings to do a red coat for the British crown. There is no equivalence.